Talk:Tesla, Inc.

Feedback from an anonymous user on the report:

1. The report contains repeated information, such Elon Musk's bio, the place(s) that the offerings are promoted and marketed.
   1. I think this has been fixed now.
2. The description of the target audience seems inaccurate.
   1. I think this has been fixed now.
3. The report is wordy.
   1. I think this has been fixed now.
4. The report is too dumb-downed. For example, no need to describe what a car is.
   1. I think this has been fixed now.
5. A suggestion is to remove the sub-headings.
   1. I think this has been fixed now.
6. One of the table includes one or more silly categories. For example, "is the car safe?"
   1. I think this has been fixed now.
7. The report is different to other reports.
   1. Different can be good, so nothing to fix here.
8. Check that the minimum investment amount is indeed £10.
   1. I think this has been fixed now.
9. The valuation of the investment is unclear and complex; make it clearer and simpler. See a high-quality research report for an example.
   1. Personally, I think the valuation is clear and simple, so I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep it how it is. Also, the layout is optimised for both mobile and desktop viewing, whereas many other reports are optimised for desktop viewing only.
10. The report seems robotic.
    1. I think this has been fixed now.
11. I'd rate the quality of the report 2 out of 10.
    1. I think this has been fixed now.
12. Add to the report recent news.
    1. I think this has been fixed now.
13. Add to the report information about Tesla's quarterly earnings.
    1. I think this has been fixed now.
14. Change the format of the report to the following headings: summary, company background, strategy, recent trading, recent updates, etc.
    1. I think this has been fixed now.
15. Change in the report the word "lifespan" to "time horizon".
    1. I think unless more people provide the same feedback, then it's best to keep the word how it is.
16. The time horizon of 60 years questionable.
    1. An explanation about the reason behind using 60 years is provided. Without knowing why the person thinks 60 years is questionable, it's almost impossible to fix. That said, a later version of the Stockhub platform will enable users to amend the underlying assumptions of the financial model.